interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket. Casper Bang-3 wrote: > >> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no >> sense. >> > > While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude the > other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability, > representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP rather > than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers > for > everything). > > In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard > templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high > scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is > that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't > really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually. > > So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of > Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a > programming model adopted after Wicket. > > /Casper > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22832474.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
